Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some observations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Arff312
    We also get many calls from the local police to handle calls at not only our properties but also properties that are not ours because they dont have the people available to handle the call. (this works out to be good PR with the property and police). A report is then written and hand deliviered to the management by our owner if this happens. (Great way to get new contracts)
    I have just one word for this statement: LIABILITY

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Investigation
      I have just one word for this statement: LIABILITY
      No, you can mitigate liability. I think you mean UNNECESSARY LIABILITY. You can't mitigate providing services where the "client" has not requested them.
      Some Kind of Commando Leader

      "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
        No, you can mitigate liability. I think you mean UNNECESSARY LIABILITY. You can't mitigate providing services where the "client" has not requested them.
        It's a liability (on many levels) for the police department to randomly send a contract security company out to calls that the police should be addressing. For one, if the security officer gets hurt while responding (accident) or at the actual call, it opens the department of for a tort lawsuit. If the Security Officers get lost or fail to respond, it presents a liability to the police department. What if the security officer responds and uses excessive force. Another tort. This is all assuming that there is not a formal, written agreement (and it sounds like there is not) between the contract security company and police department.

        So, yes, it is an UNNECESSARY LIABILITY for the security company to be engaging it that sort of activity.
        Last edited by Investigation; 05-16-2007, 05:34 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
          I don't understand how that works, at all. You're not agents of the owner, nor are you law enforcement officers under California Penal Code. (If you were, you wouldn't need BSIS licensing.)

          If you're not representing the owner, then under what legal authority are you giving lawful orders in his name? I can see private arrest, since any person may do it anywhere, but again, who gave you permission to carry guns and be on their property in the first place? The police can't do that. They can give themselves permission as agents of the state, but not a third party.

          If the police CAN do that, then you have just become actors of the state and are able to be sued for violating people's civil rights, without any of the qualified immunity the police get.
          I asked the same question when I first heard about this. My captain explained that california has a law that enables the police to basicaly deputize (for lack of a better word) civilians. It is called Posse something (i forget) but it states that any male over the age of 18 who is able bodied is required to assist the police if asked. There is another law that allows this too but i dont remember what the law is.
          Robert
          Here endith the lesson

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Investigation
            It's a liability (on many levels) for the police department to randomly send a contract security company out to calls that the police should be addressing. For one, if the security officer gets hurt while responding (accident) or at the actual call, it opens the department of for a tort lawsuit. If the Security Officers get lost or fail to respond, it presents a liability to the police department. What if the security officer responds and uses excessive force. Another tort. This is all assuming that there is not a formal, written agreement (and it sounds like there is not) between the contract security company and police department.

            So, yes, it is an UNNECESSARY LIABILITY for the security company to be engaging it that sort of activity.
            We are handling low priority noise complaints etc... There may be a written contract between the polcie and us taht i do not know of. I have not asked but I have seen them request us a number of times. I denied the request once when i was in dispatch because it was not on our property. I was told that we do go to those to assist when REQUESTED. Generally it is senior officer and a watch commander who respond to these calls. Unarmed officers dont normally go to these calls.
            Robert
            Here endith the lesson

            Comment


            • #36
              If you are being deputized, then you are acting as peace officers under the laws of the state of California. Your employer's insurance company will go through roof, because you are acting as the police. This means that you can now violate people's civil rights as the police, and enjoy all the liability and goodies of being a police officer.
              Some Kind of Commando Leader

              "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

              Comment


              • #37
                I think that our rates are already sky high due to us beign a proactive company and not observe and report only. So i would imagine that there is insurance for us covering that, I could be wrong as i am not an owner.
                Robert
                Here endith the lesson

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Arff312
                  I think that our rates are already sky high due to us beign a proactive company and not observe and report only. So i would imagine that there is insurance for us covering that, I could be wrong as i am not an owner.
                  Its two different worlds, entirely. The insurer asks, "Are you a law enforcement officer, or do you have police powers vested?" Most private companies will say no, because by law they don't. California agencies don't, it requires a temporary deputization to bestow those powers on employees.
                  Some Kind of Commando Leader

                  "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                    Its two different worlds, entirely. The insurer asks, "Are you a law enforcement officer, or do you have police powers vested?" Most private companies will say no, because by law they don't. California agencies don't, it requires a temporary deputization to bestow those powers on employees.
                    Nathan, when I visited California as a federal employee, the posse concept was explained posse comitatus or power of the county. Essentially it was taking any able-bodied person to assist law enforcement. Sometimes it was formal other times ad hoc.
                    Enjoy the day,
                    Bill

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Bill Warnock
                      Nathan, when I visited California as a federal employee, the posse concept was explained posse comitatus or power of the county. Essentially it was taking any able-bodied person to assist law enforcement. Sometimes it was formal other times ad hoc.
                      Enjoy the day,
                      Bill
                      Thank you that was exactly what the term i was trying to get at but could not remember. Thank you.
                      Robert
                      Here endith the lesson

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                        Your employer's insurance company will go through roof, because you are acting as the police.
                        This statement is simply incorrect. Under Ca. law, once you have been deputized, the agency that deputized you assumes all liabilities of the person, who was deputized, actions. The employer is not responsible for anything the said person does under the authority of the peace officer that deputized him/her. Therefore, the employer's insurance can not go up.
                        "You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em."
                        (Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller, USMC, Marine, 1962.)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          In most states, you act as the police. However, that will not apply if you violate a person's civil rights (Sec. 1981, 1983) through various means, including unreasonable force or refusal to provide a translator.

                          Even if you are justified in your use of force, the plaintiff in a civil case may still go after your company. Vicarious Liability still applies to your employer, and your employer's insurance will want to know about it.

                          Just ask your insurer "What happens if we have arrest powers like the police?" Be prepared for your insurer to go, "Explain what you are talking about, please. Now."

                          In many cases, the client has contractual immunity from the guard's behavior. However, this does not stop trial cases from assigning liability to the client! This is why client insurers want to know if the client puts armed guards on their property.
                          Some Kind of Commando Leader

                          "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Here in KCMO, employer's are required to name the Board of Police Commissioners as a insured party and certificate policy holder, as well as waive any and all liability against the Board of Police Commissioners. It is unknown if this waiver would apply to the rights of commissioned s/o's and if so, the legalities of the employer having the right or obligation to waive employee rights without their knowledge and consent.

                            I venture to say that insurance companies are not properly advised of Title 17 of the Missouri Code of State Regulations and the police powers vested in s/o's with a Class A commission. And it is a sure bet that employers are not informing clients about Title 17 either.

                            There are only two federal court cases specifically dealing with civil suits involving Title 17 and one that slightly implicates Title 17 but only in a very indirect manner.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post

                              Even if you are justified in your use of force, the plaintiff in a civil case may still go after your company. Vicarious Liability still applies to your employer, and your employer's insurance will want to know about it.
                              Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
                              Its two different worlds, entirely. The insurer asks, "Are you a law enforcement officer, or do you have police powers vested?" Most private companies will say no, because by law they don't. California agencies don't, it requires a temporary deputization to bestow those powers on employees.
                              By your own two quotes you have confirmed what it is I said. In California,( which is where I am at and an owner of a company ).
                              As a security guard or officer's actions while working for an employer does have " Vicarious Liability " for the employer, unless, an officer/guard is deputized by a peace officer,( law enforcement officer ). Then there is no liability for the employer while the said person is deputized. California law states the deputizing agency assumes all libility for the deputized person no matter what it is they may do and said person does get to enjoy all the liability and goodies of being a police officer untill said person is relieved of that duty, due to the fact they are then considered a peace officer durning that duty.
                              Now I do apologize if I have read the post wrong. But, as you stated, it is two differnt worlds between California and the rest of the States.
                              I would agree that in States where security officers have that kind of police power, then the employer would have several libility concerns but, California is not one of them to which my first post was about.
                              "You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em."
                              (Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller, USMC, Marine, 1962.)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                From what I gather the same applies to a situation in which a law enforcement officer seized a citizen's POV to continue or initiate a pursuit and demolishes the vehicle. That action is transparent to the insurance company and the officer's department assumes responsibility. Your insurance company may assist you in your efforts to obtain compensation for your loss but they are under no legal obligation to do so. Good business practices, lawyer-on-lawyer.
                                Enjoy the day,
                                Bill

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X